Mere registration of sale agreement will not prove its veracity.

With the consent of the Counsel on either side and upon completion of pleadings and perusal of documents filed in the Typed Set of papers, the Second Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. Thelegal representatives of the deceased defendant, Sankaralinga Nadar are the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Ist Additional District Court, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2001 made in O.S.No.311 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, they have preferred this appeal.

3. Theplaintiff, Arulraj is the respondent herein. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, Sankaralinga Nadar agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as per the registered Sale Agreement, dated 18.11.1996 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.30,000/-as advance sale consideration. In the Sale Agreement, it was stated that the plaintiff shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-to the defendant within a period of two years from the date of agreement.

4. The plaintiff sent a legal notice, dated 27.10.1997 to the defendant, that he is willing and ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-at any time. The defendant sent a reply notice, dated 10.11.1997 to the plaintiff, denying the execution of sale agreement and receipt of advance. In the reply notice, the defendant stated that he only agreed to execute mortgage for Rs.35,000/-for the money payable by his son to execute a deed as security and he did not execute any agreement of sale. Thereafter, the defendant approached the plaintiff through one Ganesan and informed that his reply need not be taken seriously and that he would execute the sale deed within a period of ten months. Since the defendant did not execute the Sale Agreement within the specified time, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1998 on 09.11.1998. The defendant in his written statement denied the averments made in the plaint.

5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked six documents on his side. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined two witnesses and marked one document on his behalf.

6. The Trial Court after examination of the witnesses and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the Sale Agreement was not proved for the reasons that the plaintiff, being a Government Servant applied for permission only on 06.07.1999 (i.e.) after filing the suit and got the permission only on 04.11.1999, whereas, the plaintiff sent the legal notice to the defendant on 27.10.1997, that he is willing to the pay the balance sale consideration, on which date he did not get permission from the Government. Though, it is stated that the defendant sent word through Ganesan informing that he would execute the Sale Deed within 10 months, the said Ganesan was not examined. The Trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the Sale Agreement and he was not ready to get the Sale Deed executed, however, directed the defendant to pay Rs.30,000/-to the plaintiff, since the defendant has stated in his reply that he is bound to pay the said sum to the plaintiff.

7. The aggrieved plaintiff went on appeal before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.88 of 2002. The First Appellate Court held that the defendant did not prove that the deed was executed as security for the money payable by his son and he has also failed to examine the scribe and witnesses, who attested the sale agreement. The First Appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the defendant did not take steps either to cancel the agreement of sale or to give a police complaint that the document was obtained by coercion. The First Appellate Court also held that the suit was filed within three years from the date of the Sale Agreement and it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the permission was o